More Articles

CHICAGO — When Gatorade fan Sarah Kavanagh learned that her favorite drink contains an
emulsifier banned in other countries over health concerns, she was taken aback.

“I was shocked that they’d put their consumers at risk like that and that the FDA would allow
something like that to be put in products,” said the Mississippi 15-year-old, who launched a
petition in November asking Gatorade to remove the ingredient, called brominated vegetable oil, or
BVO.

The petition, which has attracted more than 200,000 supporters on Change.org, notes that the
ingredient shares an element — bromine — with some flame retardants used in furniture and plastics.
Some studies indicate that BVO can build up in fatty tissues and cause reproductive and behavioral
problems in rodents.

On Friday, the
Los Angeles Times reported that PepsiCo Inc.will stop using the chemical in Gatorade.

PepsiCo spokeswoman Molly Carter said the company has been considering the move for more than a
year and that the Change.org pedition did not inspire the decision. However, she said consumer
feedback was an impetus.

It’s illegal to use the chemical as a food additive in the European Union, Brazil, Canada,
India, Japan and Nepal. Other ingredients that are allowed in American food but not in other
countries include certain artificial colors and additives that improve flour.

Why the difference?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration would not provide a representative for an interview, but
in past statements to the media and on its website, the agency has presented a variety of reasons
for allowing controversial chemicals in food. They include a lack of resources for research and
assurances that the substances are safe in small doses.

In the case of BVO, the agency has allowed “interim” use of the ingredient since 1970, pending
additional toxicological tests. Asked why it has not addressed

the interim status in more than

40 years, the agency cited a need to “maximize its resources” and said addressing the issue is “
not a priority for the agency at this time.”

“FDA’s mission is first and foremost to protect public health by ensuring that foods are safe
and properly labeled,” the agency said in a statement, contending that science-based implementation
of federal law has helped make the U.S. food supply “the safest in the world.”

Unsatisfied with these kinds of answers, activists and public health watchdogs have urged the
FDA and food-makers to halt the use of various chemicals until safety can be fully determined. Food
companies, they note, have reformulated their products for other countries — including members of
the European Union, Australia, China, India and Japan — but seem reluctant to change their products
in the United States until they must.

“There are all of these compounds on which the EU has taken action to the point that companies
with global production have to have a separate line that’s able to meet the EU standards and then a
line for everyplace else, including the U.S.,” said Michael Hansen, senior scientist at the
Consumers Union.

Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, has been
lobbying the FDA for decades to reconsider its stance on ingredients such as potassium bromate, a
flour enhancer, trans fats and some artificial colors. But all still are allowed.

“The FDA has been extremely lenient in evaluating food additives and it’s almost impossible to
get the FDA to ban an additive once they have approved it,” Jacobson said. “It’s just not as
public-health oriented as it should be.”

Jacobson said it’s unclear whether the inaction stems from industry pressure, fear of litigation
or more pressing priorities, but the longtime activist thinks that potentially harmful additives —
even ones consumed by millions every day — are not being adequately vetted.

As an example, Jacobson and colleagues last year urged the FDA to re-examine aspartame, the
sweetener used in most American diet drinks, in light of recent studies in Italy that suggested a
link to cancer in rodents. After the agency “nitpicked” aspects of the research, Jacobson said he
asked FDA officials if they would at least call for further safety studies.

“FDA said simply ‘no,’ ” Jacobson recalled. “And it was really frustrating. I just don’t
think

they’re doing enough to protect

the public’s health with regard to food additives.”

Integrative nutrition specialist Jayson Calton says many ingredients remain in American food
simply because many consumers are unaware and don’t complain.

“I think the companies figure ‘let’s leave well enough alone and not tell the consumer about
what’s going on, and as long as they’re not asking questions, we’ll do fine,’ ” said Calton, who
outlines concerns over 13 common American food additives in his upcoming book
Rich Food Poor Food,” written with his wife, Mira. “Most of these companies do business in
the UK and the EU and they are able to produce them just fine without the banned ingredients, but
they don’t do anything about them here.”

In the United States, the FDA is required to conduct pre-market testing for some new food
ingredients, but others simply need an OK from experts hired by the manufacturers. Those companies
are not required to show the FDA their reasoning or even to notify the agency before using the
ingredient. The agency can ask to see the research and investigate if health issues emerge
later.

European authorities have relied more on the precautionary principle, which means erring on the
side of caution when scientists have yet to reach firm conclusions on health risks of new products
or those already on the market.

Some observers credit that system with helping to protect consumers; others say the process can
be unduly influenced by factors other than hard science.

Some European regulatory decisions based on the precautionary principle “go beyond scientific
evidence to consumer wishes and political considerations,” said food scientist John Lupien, a
former chief of the food and nutrition division of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.

Hansen said he thinks the EU’s process is scientifically rigorous — and that consumers often
have just cause for concern.

“In the U.S., money rules and industry wields a lot of influence and that’s how it has been for
a while,” Hansen said, “but in Europe they take into serious consideration what their population
wants, too. And why shouldn’t the population be concerned about new things being put into food?”&
amp; amp; lt; /p>

Lupien noted that the precautionary principle also can be manipulated for business purposes. “
Their domestic market is sometimes very highly subsidized, and they don’t want competition,” he
said of the European Union.

Both Lupien and Hansen have served as experts for U.N. panels on food additives and agree that
there is no reason for brominated vegetable oil to remain in U.S. food without undergoing the
testing called for four decades ago.

“If you look at some of the toxicological reviews, it’s pretty clear that more data should be
prepared,” said Lupien, who worked at the FDA in the ‘60s and ‘80s.